/ Honister zip wire

I was suprised to see so many posters unable to understand that tourism per se, is not what those of us who live in national parks want.
What locals need are permanent jobs, not temporary jobs taken by summer visitors.
It is ridiculous to say that summer tourist jobs help locals to permanent employment. It is ridiculous to say that tourism provides houses for locals. It provides holiday homes. Used how many weeks of the year?

There have been some very good aspects of tourism, incoming money obviously, but not least opening up rural areas to tourists who bring a variety of cultures etc. which have informed people from rural tourist areas about other people. But those lessons have been learnt now.
Is it neccessary to have only one industry which, if unchecked, destroys our heritage?
The problem with uber tourismo (I just made that phrase up) is that it becomes to be seen as " those folk are OK, they have tourism" when permanent jobs and more cheaper homes are needed.
Someone (Ridge?) suggested that I guide tourists around the UK when in fact the opposite is true. I have shown people who are interested in the bad side of tourism what happens in the UK.
I suggest that opening the old mines in mountain areas would provide longer term employment. THE MINING WASTE!! some say, on the HILLSIDE!!
So? It is covered in vegetation in twenty years after the mining stops, and has done some good in the meantime.

In reply to armus: I am not clear if you support the zip wire or oppose it, it's quite hard to understand your post. I think you oppose it.
I live quite near it, don't care wither it goes up or not, if it provides a few jobs for locals, which presently it does, I am more in favour than not.

> (In reply to armus) your own words from the other thread you have linked:
>
> "As for local jobs, the zipline won't provide anything for locals"
>
> In that case, who do you think constructs, maintains and staffs the facilities at Honister?

>> When you have a large construction job such as installing a zip wire on a cliff face, then it must be done by the best firms, not perhaps Cumbrian but depending on experience. Temporary jobs whoever gets the contract. If a company that is not Cumbrian gets the installation, then it is most likely that they will get the maintenance too, that makes sense.
Staffing it, i.e. tourist guides. How many permanent jobs do you think that that will provide for locals? It is a seasonal job after all, and see my previous posts re. overseas staff being employed. Locals don't often get jobs guiding people who speak other languages.
There is a shortage of minerals worldwide today, but enough to be found in mines which were abandonded only because there were other mining sites worldwide more easily mined.

For me the mountains are a place to get away from the intense city life and frankly anything artificial IE a theme park. Its a place to get back to nature. I know humans are always stepping further and further into these areas and setting up things like ski-lifts or cable cars but I just don't see why its neccesary. The whole point of a national park is to leave it untouched. If you want a zip-wire you can visit GO APE or something, why spoil such a gorgeous place like Buttermere. Climbing is interacting with the environment, building on it isn't. And yes you could argue the mine is much more damage than a zipwire but I'm not sure I would have voted for a mine in a national park even if this was 1850.

I remember seeing people talk about coming up with new ways to bring people to the lakes and make it more accessible for young people, but thats just missing the point in my opinion. People shoudn't need convincing to visit some jaw dropping natural beauty.

> What are your true reasons for not wanting the zip line or probably anything this company has or wants to do????

I don't know armus and I'm a fellow Cumbrian, but I think that he has put his case badly.
His main point is that extra tourist attractions do not provide permanent jobs for people living in the lake district. That is true, especially when languages are involved. So what's the point of a Honister zipwire plus extra tourists who don't provide permanent jobs? The crag is more important than the tourists. http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=799
The mining thing was probably based on an academic geolgical survey which said that there were many small mines around the edges of the pennines/ lakes which could be re-opened, there are several minerals which can be mined, economically for between ten and 25 tears.
Greening over mine spoil, he was right, what is a 20 year wait?
Tourism will continue, but they don't want it increased beyond current levels, they want permanent jobs.

I'm not sure your correct with that one. There is evidence over much of Lakeland from mine workings centuries ago, which have not 'greened' up and possible never will. Copper Mine valley at Coniston being one example but there are many.

I'm a tourist in Cumbria at least once a year. I can visualise quite a few jobs that are year round and many others businesses that might not through the winter without the summer boost.

I'm fairly sure that the cottage company office is staffed year round. Lots of cottages seemed to be refurbished presumably by local companies. i think that the Langdale Hotel and Country club are open all year. The shope trade year round, presumably with more staff in the summer

I met a man whilst on holiday in New Zealand. He ran a Pizza place in the lakes all year. He'd taken a month of as he did each january as it was of the few times he felt he could get away.

As far as i can see the Honister outfit is open 7 days a week from January 21st

So i percieve that seasonal employment is an isssue, but not all the money from toursm produces jobs that entirely seasonal

> (In reply to mockerkin)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure your correct with that one, There is evidence over much of Lakeland from mine workings centuries ago, which have not 'greened' up and possible never will. Copper Mine valley at Coniston being one example but there are many.

>> Yes, that is true also for say, Honister which is so big and black and wonderful (especially in the rain) with slate spoil. But even Honister has greened, on the Butteremere side, over the last 20 years. So mine spoil can be beautiful. There are projects afoot to scatter alpine seeds onto some fells to cover bare areas. Copper Mine is less seen. But the lakes have been changed so much by mankind's mining, foresting and sheep grazing, which we were all taught about in school, and visitors don't seem to realise that these changes are part of our history, mine spoils included. Cumbria shouldn't expand it's tourist trade, it should find alternatives. (Not nuclear waste dumps)

> (In reply to xplorer)
> His main point is that extra tourist attractions do not provide permanent jobs for people living in the lake district. That is true, especially when languages are involved.

Aren't Cumbrians incapable of learning languages then?

Part of the trouble is that in this country tourism still isn't seen as a 'proper job'. Places like Mallorca take tourism seriously, and there are colleges where locals can go to learn the skills, including languages. However in the UK the idea of providing a service to visitors doesn't seem to have registered with a lot of people.

Of course seasonality is an issue, but the Lake District attracts visitors all the year round - far fewer in winter admittedly, but it's not like a seaside resort. The problem with weekend visitors is that they don't spend enough locally, but they have to be given the opportunity to do so. If the supermarkets shut at 9pm on a Friday evening then you can't blame visitors for bringing all their supplies with them.

I'm not sure that re-opening the mines would make much of a difference either. If it were to happen, most likely it would be "outsider" companies who would bring in skilled labour from elsewhere rather than trying to train the locals.

Just received the bellow spam email. Im afraid I didnt support it and did the opposite.

"Please support our Zip Wire Application, NOW !

We have been advised by the Lake District National Park Authority Planning Board that letters or emails in support of our new application should be submitted immediately.

Proposal:
"Installation of a 1,035m zip wire, in two lengths, starting from Honister Crags and landing at Honister Slate Mine Car Park for a temporary period of 18 months to allow for the completion of a visitor perception study by the University of Cumbria"

You may have written in support of our previous applications before and for this we are most sincerely grateful. However, as this is a brand new proposal the LDNPA require existing and any further support to be forwarded direct to them quoting the reference below.

>
> The place used to be a working mine, and they used to have a drag line, in pretty much the same spot.
>
> What are your true reasons for not wanting the zip line or probably anything this company has or wants to do????

Very sound point and one I have raised in previous threads on this subject.

In reply to Trangia: I don't think that's fair. Britain's uplands are a unique and fragile resource, that provide an intense and unreproducible experience. They have cultural and historic significance.

'I wandered lonely as a cloud
'until I came upon a
'a cloud of shrieking, well heeled thrill seekers on a stag weekend.'

> (In reply to Trangia) I don't think that's fair. Britain's uplands are a unique and fragile resource, that provide an intense and unreproducible experience. They have cultural and historic significance.
>
> 'I wandered lonely as a cloud
> 'until I came upon a
> 'a cloud of shrieking, well heeled thrill seekers on a stag weekend.'

I'd normally agree with you, but I wouldn't describe Honister as being particularly fragile or unique. It's a working mine, with attendant thundering trucks etc, located next to a road that's normally bumper to bumper with tourists. It's probably better for the Lakes as a whole to 'sacrifice', (bit too drastic a word IMHO), Honister in the same way as Grizedale and Whinlatter have been to accomodate tourists seeking an 'adventure experience'.

> (In reply to Ridge) Well their you go, Grizedale, Whinlatter, Honister ... then Grasmere, Langdale, Wasdale...
>
> 'don't it always seem to go
> that you don't know what you got till it's gone...'

TBH Grasmere and Langdale went ages ago ;-)

Fair point, but the LDNP needs to decide if they want to go the way of limiting visitors and controlling vehicle access, (which I can see the logic of), or it's current direction of cramming as many people in as possible.

Unfortunately, contrary to perhaps understandable superficial impressions, Honister Crag is in fact the very reverse.

The site is an SSSI primarily because it is a stronghold of an extremely scarce vegetation community that is both extremely vulnerable to disturbance and, in terms the area it covers at Honister, unique south of the border.

Most of the broad ledge systems you see as you look up at the crag from the road carry extensive stands of what's known as 'Tall herb' communities. These are scarce habitat types, related to the alpine meadows of continental Europe. They are typically found on un- or lightly grazed upland cliff ledges, and restricted to base-rich substrates and sheltered situations.

Tall herb is highly valued for both representing one of the few totally natural habitats surviving in Britain and for providing a refuge for rare, grazing-sensitive, montane plants. As you can imagine, the bulk of the habitat - which is never abundant anywhere in the UK, is to be found in the Scottish Highlands. Honister is therefore outstanding in possessing a relative large amount of these plant communities; it is likely to possess more than half the Tall Herb to be found south of the border.

Unfortunately, it is incredibly easy to scuff away the plant cover by repeated footfall. The reason Honister Crag is such a stronghold is that the steep north-facing cliff ledges have been mostly inaccessible to grazing animals and humans, apart from, until now, the occasional adventurous scrambler or climber.

The advent of the cableways and stapled rock that the Honister company have put in has changed all that however and the reason why the company got fined nearly £30,000 by Natural England was because they originally put in a new 'Via Ferrata' without consultation - which resulted in a large amount of damage to the Tall herb stands.

This is why controversy over the proposed Zip Wire development isn't just about aesthetics - increasing the numbers of people traversing formerly untrodden ground is going to increase the risk of degrading an already-threatened part of our natural heritage. (The new application advocates using the existing Via Ferratae to gain access to the launching point - which itself would now be constructed on the Crag itself, rather than on the summit slopes as in the previous application. Implicit in this application therefore is that there will be a large increase in users and therefore potential footfall in sensitive areas).

> (In reply to armus)
>
> For me the mountains are a place to get away from the intense city life and frankly anything artificial IE a theme park. Its a place to get back to nature. I know humans are always stepping further and further into these areas and setting up things like ski-lifts or cable cars but I just don't see why its neccesary. The whole point of a national park is to leave it untouched. If you want a zip-wire you can visit GO APE or something, why spoil such a gorgeous place like Buttermere. Climbing is interacting with the environment, building on it isn't. And yes you could argue the mine is much more damage than a zipwire but I'm not sure I would have voted for a mine in a national park even if this was 1850.
>
> I remember seeing people talk about coming up with new ways to bring people to the lakes and make it more accessible for young people, but thats just missing the point in my opinion. People shoudn't need convincing to visit some jaw dropping natural beauty.

Problem with Go-Ape is that is spoils what was previously a lovely forest. OK, I accept that Sherwood Pines is somewhat artificial in itself but i'd sooner have regimented pines interspersed with indiginous species as the forest reclaims itself than Go-Ape.

> (In reply to purplemonkeyelephant)
> [...]
>
> Problem with Go-Ape is that is spoils what was previously a lovely forest. OK, I accept that Sherwood Pines is somewhat artificial in itself but i'd sooner have regimented pines interspersed with indiginous species as the forest reclaims itself than Go-Ape.
>
> http://goape.co.uk/days-out/sherwood

Sherwood Pines is entirely artificial. There never was woodland there before it was planted up. Corsican Pines planted primarily to provide pit props and reduce reliance on timber imports post World wars. It's intensively managed for timber production and (latterly) visitor activity - MTBs, concerts, Go Ape are all part of that mix. Big areas of Clipstone are being restored to heathland, as it used to be, but the area around the visitor car parks/ bike hire/ go ape isn't part of that scheme. If you want to to see "proper" Sherwood, go further north beyond the Sherwood Forest visitor centre and go to Budby Heath - open (CROW) heathland which was a former MOD training area.

> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
> [...]
>
> Sherwood Pines is entirely artificial. There never was woodland there before it was planted up. Corsican Pines planted primarily to provide pit props and reduce reliance on timber imports post World wars. It's intensively managed for timber production and (latterly) visitor activity - MTBs, concerts, Go Ape are all part of that mix. Big areas of Clipstone are being restored to heathland, as it used to be, but the area around the visitor car parks/ bike hire/ go ape isn't part of that scheme. If you want to to see "proper" Sherwood, go further north beyond the Sherwood Forest visitor centre and go to Budby Heath - open (CROW) heathland which was a former MOD training area.

* a watersports centre complete with a new lake and building for staff and equipment;

* a hostel for visitors; and

* a lakeside education classroom.

Mr Denby, who runs South Lakes Hotels, said it was not the job of the LDNPA to run commercial activities in competition with local businesses and called for the authority to consider selling off Brockhole.

“It is being subsidised to the tune of £300,000 a year and more public money is being pumped in to pay for the redevelopment. It puts the centre at an unfair advantage.”

Thomas Noblett, who runs the Langdale Chase Hotel, claimed a wedding venue at Brockhole would end up ‘looting the business’ from other hotels.

> (In reply to toad)
> [...]
>
> If it was heathland where did Robin Hood hide?

'Forest', in early Norman times, simply meant an area of wild land that was outside of Common Law. So you could talk about, e.g, 'a wood within a forest'.

Robin Hood and many outlaws hid in caves on the border of Derbyshire and Yorkshire (eg. at Stanage Edge). That way, you could literally jump from one jurisdiction to another. Plus it was very wild and remote. Stanage was particularly clever because on the Yorkshire side you were in Hallamshire, which was a 'shire within a shire', having a different jurisdiction again from either Yorks or Derbys.

Final note. The full title of Robin Hood's arch rival was not the 'Sheriff of Nottingham' but the 'Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire'. So that's why outlaws being chased by this Sheriff typically ended up on that border at Stanage etc. If they went into Yorkshire, they were beyond the remit of the aforesaid Sheriff ... but of course, if they were particularly notorious, they would be equally wanted on the other side of the border.

The Friends of the Lake District objection is also in there. Bits of it seem pretty ill-informed - for example, suggesting it'd be easier (cheaper) for a young person with limited income to experience parascending than the zip wire....

They're consulting on it at the moment, no decision as yet. Honister, along with Keswick and Cockermouth, would end up with Penrith (so probably stay safe Tory - Rory Stewart) under those proposals. Labour are objecting as they'd probably end up losing a seat in Cumbria (we end up with 1 less MP, which is the point of it).

But I still haven't worked out whose it is at the moment. I know Copeland ended up with a random bit that looks joined on on the map in the last reorganisation, but has no road link to the rest of the constituency (well apart from driving miles round through other constituencies, obviously).